More seriously -- here is the most telling thing I have seen in the coverage so far:

2016 Clinton 59,354,848 2016 Trump- 59,188,799

(not all votes counted yet)

2012 B.Obama- 65,915,795 2012 M.Romney 60,933,504

Both candidates got less votes than the losing candidate in the 2012 election. So, it wasn't so much that Trump voters showed up in droves as it was, 7 million people who voted in 2012 were so disgusted/disappointed/whatever'ed in the choices they simply didn't vote.

Paranoid Jack wrote on Nov 8, 2016, 22:18:Politics and Religion on two things that should not be discussed at work unless both side are willing to keep an open mind and even temper. If you can not debate a point from the opposing side then it is best left alone. That helps to keep the peace. Otherwise you both need to step outside of your box and look at the other side with an open mind. Yes, Hillary has experience in politics but to a good many that is a negative not a positive when coupled with her criminal past. Those who don't buy into your way of thinking see her as pure evil. Just as you see Trump. And a Trump supporter views your complaints of him with a very skeptical eye when you are willing to overlook Clinton's past. Plus a lot of the lefts labels of him have been proven false. Yes, he is a loud mouth moron at times but our last two presidents were no better. They both lied repeatedly. So how could a business man do any worse than a lawyer? Time will tell.

I've noticed with all the released wikileaks emails that a lot of liberals that loved Julian and wikileaks before are not so enamoured now. I believe though damaging we all needed to see the true depth of corruption that most of already knew was there.

I agree, talking politics or religion at work in general isn't a good idea. But our office environment was pretty unusual, a small office with all management being remote. And we were (as I tried to indicate) civil, although occasionally loud (rarely might be a better adjective). I'll admit, I tended to be the loud one, and once I realized it (usually not long after it happened) I would simply back out of the argument -- ending it.

What I don't understand is why anyone thinks Trump is an outsider. He's the other side of the equation which everyone rails against. He is one of the people spending money on politicians. He's the CEO sending all his company's production out of the country. If you are tired of the lying politicians, why tie yourself to a rich business man who lies just as much as they do. Why tie yourself to someone who reverses his positions within the same debate. Who denies saying something, he just said in front of a nationwide audience minutes before? How can you know what his position is, or what he might do, when he never states any specifics, and on the rare occasions he does give specifics, he reverses himself later. He's basically a D who decided to run as an R because he'd have a better chance.

All the complaints people have against the business as usual among our politicians are absolutely right. They've done a lousy job and lied through their teeth. But at least I know what I'll get with Clinton. No one knows what we'll get with Trump. Oh and speaking of labels which have been proven false, nice sly job of labeling Clinton as criminal.

Paranoid Jack wrote on Nov 8, 2016, 21:59:What I find strange is how Trump has a 10% lead in Ohio and they are still labeling it as too close to call.

This kind of caution is often based on historical knowledge of how particular counties have voted. So, if counties known to have gone one way or the other have reported their vote totals, but other counties which trend the opposite way have not reported. There can be big swings. As has been pointed out, urban areas lean left, rural to the right. And since 2000, they tend to be a bit more conservative in "calling" states.

Wallshadows wrote on Nov 8, 2016, 21:39:Why are states like Florida and Ohio so important? If it's based on electoral votes, wouldn't a state like California, New York, and Texas be more important since they have more or is it because they're historically one way or another and written off?

If Trump lands Florida and Ohio, is that basically his golden ticket?

It's based on the polling. Florida and Ohio are important because the polling is close and they have a lot of electoral votes. California, Texas and New York are basically a done deal (as far as polling is concerned). CA and NY to Hillary, TX to Trump. Although Texas has been closer for a D this time around than it has been for a LONG time.

Retired wrote on Nov 8, 2016, 17:44:Somewhere along the way, and it is evident here as well, that if you oppose something/someone you hate them. We have lost the ability to be civil and live next to eachother....

Yep, sad isn't it? Today whenever we hear two opposing views almost instantly one side pulls out their cliche insults in an attempt to shutdown the other side as if they have some form of arrested development or didn't mature past their early teen years. I've not been a member of either party for my entire life but it seems that the left uses that tactic far more than the right. I always laugh because they have chosen their sides not being able to see that both the left side and the right have some good qualities that benefit us all. Another funny behavior is those people that refuse to see any wrong with their candidate claiming it is all the work of the other side and their new network while they look at the opposition as naive. Too ironic.

I've spent a fair amount of time thinking about this. But haven't really come up with any useful answers. I lean left, but I do have some right leaning opinions. The standard label of "social liberal, fiscal conservative" is close, if not precise. A former co-worker, let's call him Frank, is someone I worked with pretty regularly for 20 years, and someone I socialized with too -- we were on a bowling team together for 8 years or so. Frank is far more conservative than I am. Frank listens to Rush, Hannity, and the rest. I know Frank pretty well. And even though our political discussions were occasionally loud neither of us really ever got "mad".

But this election was the split. We don't talk politics any longer. To me it is clear -- Trump is unfit to be President. Yeah, Hillary is a terrible canidate. But she is qualified. But Frank can not or will not see that. And I personally find that unacceptable.

Frank is a smart guy. He is not some hillbilly punk. He is not a racist. He is an average guy, who goes to church on Sunday and has a wife and two kids. If Frank can't see past the right's cloud of nonsense, the country is doomed to this "new normal".

I agree, there is no going back to "local" government. Everything and everywhere is tied in to all the other things and places. Even if you could, it wouldn't be much different. Some portion of the group is going to be unhappy with the choices. Isolationism is short-sighted. As hokie as it sounds, we (as in the entire world) really need to start working together much better.

Indeed Verno. Unless both houses of Congress and the Presidency is held by the same party, it is likely we will see a continuation of obstructionism. And even then, filibuster rules in the Senate are such that barring a solid 60 vote block, neither party will be able to accomplish much.

RedEye9 wrote on Nov 8, 2016, 10:41:Nothing to fear, the idiocy that was trump will fade away and normalcy will return.

Speaking colloquially, "From your lips to God's ears." However, I sincerely doubt it. I think the only chance for that is an electoral landslide for Clinton. Which is not outside the realm of the possible, but not particularly likely. Barring a total slaughter at the ballot box, Trump supporters will simply say/think they are "this close". That if the GOP had fully supported them, they would have won. And their anger will renew, again.

I greatly fear this is the new normal. I hope I am wrong.

Oh and I voted early this year for the first time ever -- about two weeks ago. I doubt I'll ever vote on "election day" ever again. Assuming of course they continue to allow early voting.

jdreyer wrote on Nov 8, 2016, 03:42:It's all going to depend on the insurance companies. Once they realize they discover that computer drivers have 1/10th the accidents that humans have, they'll jack the insurance price on human drivers pushing all but the wealthiest to adopt automated driving. If you don't think that can't happen within a few years, you don't know much about capitalism.

That is possible, it is also possible laws are passed to keep insurance companies from doing it. Never underestimate the capacity of the general public (and the politicians they support) to be stubborn or stupid.

descender wrote on Nov 7, 2016, 20:00:Most drivers are overly sure of their own ability and awareness until they are actually in an accident. It has basically been proven that humans can't actually do 2 activities at the same time at full mental capacity (multitask) and we are limited to our 5 senses and their ability to perceive the world. There is not too much that a human can actually do better than a machine anymore.

I agree that 10 years might be optimistic, but 20 probably isn't.

Yeah, my counter to his argument is how often I see stupid drivers doing things which are risky, which no automated system would do. Twenty years is a long time when talking about technical innovation, so that might be long enough. However, even if the technology gets there, you still have to get past the social portion. People will stubbornly insist they don't want to give up their "control".

I mean think about it -- we can't even get the US government to stop making pennies despite the fact it costs 1.7 cents to make one. Eliminating pennies and paper one dollar bills would save literally millions of dollars every single year. Yet we don't do it.

Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2016, 15:12:Regardless, I doubt many are buying cars 10 years from now. Some Uberesque entities will own fleets. Want to go somewhere? Call a car, and an automated one will be there within minutes unless you live in the most remote, rural areas.

While I would certainly agree driver-less cars are making good strides, I'm pretty sure we won't live to see this level of driving automation. This is subject is actually an on and off again discussion with a buddy of mine. And I'm the pro automation guy. He talks about how every day when driving that he sees situations he doubts a driver-less car could deal with.